Dan,
I'm not asserting of using a all purpose general pattern but of having
few designers
and architects create a set of "custom pattern" for a project. So what
we're doing
is breaking the design/architect part into 2 phases - creating a custom
pattern by few high level OO designer/architect and then having
specifications
written using these patterns by application designer/architect who do not
have high level of OO knowledge but have knowledge of the application.
Of course, this is only benefitial for a very very large scale project
involving many
developers. In a mid-sized to small projects involving only a few
designer/architect,
separating into 2 phases doesn't make too much sense.
What I'm trying to say is the OO is becoming embedded into other
technologies
such that not all people need to know it, just like not all web page
designers now
need to know HTML to design a web page. Knowing HTML and related
technologies
does help to create a better web page, but I think it's much better to
hire graphics
designers over people who just know HTML - more designers and few technology
people.
Ford created an assembly line not to make better cars but to make cars
available
to many people. Yes, creating a entirely custom solution may result in a
better
product but in most cases, they are not economically feasible.
IMHO, I think it is the responsibility of the technologist to make the
technology
usable by many people as possible whether they understand the underlying
technology or not.
H.Ozawa
>
>
> And if your assertion re: tools and patterns is true, then most
> developers need to stop imagining themselves to also be
> designers/architects - they've turned this responsibility over to tools
> and patterns.
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
